Proposal would raise the bar on ability to increase taxes

Voters would decide on tougher standard for ballot initiatives

Feb. 13, 2013

Written by

Bernie Hunhoff

Jane Gullickson (right) served as an intern for Larry Rhoden (left), South Dakota House of Representatives Majority Leader, during the 2008 session of the South Dakota State legislature. Rhoden served as a delegate at the RNC and Gullickson was a page. / Submitted photo

Tim Rave

In a state where raising taxes is as welcomed as drought, the ability to increase taxes might become even more difficult.

South Dakota voters ultimately could decide whether to set a higher standard for tax increases. A Senate resolution passed Tuesday could make tax increases through ballot initiatives a tougher task.

Senate Joint Resolution 2 seeks a constitutional amendment that would raise the bar on tax-increasing and tax-extending ballot measures from a simple majority to two-thirds approval. It passed the Senate 25-10.

Its fate in the House might not be decided for weeks, but if it is approved there, the measure automatically goes on the next general election ballot as a constitutional amendment. It does not require the governor’s signature, according to Jim Fry, director of the Legislative Research Council.

Proponents say the resolution aligns the initiative process with the Legislature, where a two-thirds majority already is required to pass tax legislation. Sen. Tim Rave, R-Baltic, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said the resolution is not in response to a need to solve any perceived problem with the initiative process. Rather, it simply tests voters’ opinion on whether a super majority should also be the threshold for taxes proposed in initiated measures.

“I don’t think there is anything wrong with having the discussion,” Rave said. “Let the people decide. Maybe they will say, ‘You know what, a simple majority is fine,’ and we’ll move on. But there is nothing wrong with having that discussion.”

Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, the resolution’s prime sponsor, said the last time voters created a tax through the initiative process was in 2006, when they raised the cigarette tax.

Opponents said the resolution weakens the initiative process and would allow a minority to control the wishes of a majority of voters. Senators as diverse as Chuck Welke, D-Wagner, and Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City, made those points in debate on the Senate floor Tuesday before the resolution went to a vote.

(Page 2 of 2)

Welke said the resolution “diminishes our democracy.”

He said South Dakota was the first state to allow voters to bypass elected officials and directly vote for new laws or to strike down existing ones. Raising the bar to a two-thirds majority from a simple majority for adopting new taxes or extending existing taxes that are sunsetting weakens the principle that direct voter engagement with legislation is a valuable right.

“There is no need to change. What we have has worked for a long time,” Welke said.

Adelstein said that while a super majority in the Legislature for tax legislation “makes perfect sense,” extending that practice to the initiative process undercuts voters if 34 percent can thwart the will of the other 66 percent.

“We certainly should not allow a minority ... to make it impossible for a strong majority” to set tax policy, Adelstein said.

In the floor debate, Majority Whip Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the argument that a two-third stand would diminish democracy “is totally false. ... We are putting this in the hands of citizens. They will decide whether to change the constitution.”

House Minority Leader Bernie Hunhoff said the House probably would not take up the resolution until it has voted on all its own bills. That could take a week or longer, he estimates.

Hunhoff takes a dim view of the proposal that a super majority be required for taxes emerging from the initiative process.

“It seems that would forever freeze into place the current tax system, for better or worse,” Hunhoff said.

“It already takes a super majority in the Legislature, and that has proven to be a huge burden.”

Hunhoff asks of the sponsors: “If it’s good for tax issues, why not spread it to other issues? Nobody makes the argument that’s a good idea. We’ve always been very strong on one man, one vote.”